Pages

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Dawkins not an Atheist?

Note: I am painting with a very broad and I hope fun and simultaneously enlightening brush here (I'm attempting to highlight some of Dawkins' positions in a revealing and funny way; I know he would try to wiggle out of those statements but they're all out there). Dawkins, known as the world's most famous atheist, may be inadvertently, walking down the same trail that led the world's most notorious atheist, Flew, to belief (get his book, There is a God, here). He would do well to heed C.S. Lewis' advice, "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." Dawkins berates agnostics describing the poverty of agnosticism (in the God Delusion) and now reluctantly agrees he is one (get that story here). At least, as did Bertrand Russell, he realizes the ignorance of true atheism. Remember Dawkins' interesting "endorsement" of Inteligent Design (see it here). I agree with him about the poverty of agnosticism and prefer the rich history of intellectually solid Christian theism over the ignorance of atheism (not to mention the joy of being God's children and co-heirs with Christ, Rom.8:17).

I know it is an oversimplification, but just for fun, he claims to be an atheist then concedes that's not logically sustainable, criticizes agnostics but admits to being one and lambasts proponents of intelligent design, while admitting, there's reason to believe in ID, as long as you keep those beliefs within the context of the atheism he previously admitted comes up short. Brilliant!!! No wonder he is still too scared to debate William Lane Craig (maybe he is aware of C.S. Lewis' advice after all) so who knows if he'll be honest enough to approach this issue with integrity and humility any time soon. On a side note, he says he won't debate Craig because Craig is "an apologist for genocide" (get that excuse here). Nothing like a good old fashioned ad hominem attack to wiggle out of a debate you can't win (against one of the most caring and loving proponents of intellect and altruism you'll ever encounter). Interestingly, Dawkins forgets his own worldview can't explain why genocide would even be wrong (for example: Atheists reject anything outside naturalism, naturalism cannot account for objective morality, atheists, therefore reject any notion of objective morality and I guess you could make the argument that a true atheist can not be moral, only one that rejects total devotion to naturalism could). He also forgets Hitler loved "On the Origin of Species" (Remember its original title "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" - yes, Darwin condoned racism). Stalin, Mao, Hitler and friends were all ideologically in Dawkins' camp and he has no trouble "sharing a chair" on the platform of secular humanism with those "Apologists of Genocide."

On a side note, Dawkins tries, unsuccessfully, to make the case that the small number of Christians in the scientific community is evidence that faith is irrational. That's kind of like saying the small number of Christians in Iran makes Christianity false (interestingly, there are about 1 million Christians in Iran, pray for Youcef Nadarkhani who has been condemned to die for his faith). The reality is that the Fatwa of Naturalism rules the land of academia and anyone who dares challenge the status quo will be banished. That doesn't tell us anything about the validity of theism, only about the insanity of discrimination (having a Chemistry degree I know first hand).

Caleb is right. I think what strikes me most is @Eternityimpact's ease with which he spins the facts and is comfortable spreading whitenoise. A while back the same thing went on surrounding the final moments before Christophe Hitchen's death - becoming a believer in God, whatnot. Eternityimpact got hammered for that one. It doesn't reflect well for a Christian to twist the facts. Better to say nothing.

Thanks for the compliments Anonymous. Just setting the record straight, I never said Hitchens converted BEFORE death, that post made the claim that he did so AFTER death, in eternity. I believe he is very aware of who God is today. I clarified that numerous times and it didn't seem to get through to the atheists in the discussion. Sorry. Glad you're still coming back for more. Hammer away!!!

Nate (eternity impact) is right about not "twisting" facts when it comes to Hitchens. He never said that Hitchen's converted before death only that he did so after death. Now as a matter of fact I think Nate is entirely mistaken about that, but he isn't guilty of "spinning" the facts. In this case pertaining to Dawkins it isn't so clear...Yet if I may speculate since Nate is "painting with a very broad and I hope fun" brush perhaps it was some sort of jest?

There are a few other things we should be clear on as well; atheism doesn't entail metaphysical or methodological naturalism. Neither atheism nor naturalism entail the nonexistence of objective morality. At least some other premises are needed for those claims.

Thanks Caleb. I'm attempting to highlight some of Dawkins' positions in a revealing and funny way; I know he would try to wiggle out of these statements but they're all out there. I know he would take offense at being called an agnostic but how else can you define 6.9 out of 7? I know he would claim to be an atheist but he readily acknowledges you cannot fully disprove God. His statements, event hough he would try to wiggle out of them, reveal a bankruptcy of intellect that I think is funny and typical of anyone taking the stand he does. 1 Cor.1:27!

No he wouldn't take an offense at being called an agnostic (as long as being called an agnostic Doesn't mean someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists; or thinks that no persons can know whether or not God exists) that was the point he was trying to make in the discussion. I don't think that's a good point, but to his credit he is at least staying consistent in describing his beliefs. Further he has consistently said that the probability of the nonexstince of God is 6-6.9/7. As far as know. If he has said otherwise, or been intellectually dishonest I should stop defending him.

At any rate any person who thinks that the Nonexistence of god is more probable than not (>50%)should just call themselves an atheist. The same for a person who thinks that God's existence is more probable than not, they should just call themselves a theist. I don't see how either of those positions would be logically fallacious.

I am not sure what to say in response to the verse. There are many bad arguments for God's existence and her nonexistence. And there are clearly many bad arguments for God's existence (D'souza is the first that comes to mind) and her nonexistence (Dawkin's probably fits in this category). This is just an unfortunate fact of the debate.

I find it strange that when a highly educated and well spoken atheist such as Dawkins puts a thorn in the side of a christian they react poorly. It seems to be par for the course that when they find he is to rational to argue with that they suddenly decide to make that person a 'christian hiding in an atheist's body'. I guess if someone puts your beliefs to the test it's easy to turn the tables and try to make them like you. Classic deflection.

Not being able to fully disprove god does not mean you can't be an atheist. I have never actually seen the cell tower that my phones uses, but I know it's there.

You also seemed to heavily rely on association to prove your point. Just because Hitler enjoyed "On Origins of Species" does not mean that people knowing evolution to be true are ready to engage in genocide. Using your tactic I could say that Catholic priests that have been in the news for unfortunate incidents have ALL been ardent readers of the bible. Does that mean all readers of the bible are likely to commit perverse acts? Of course not.

I'd like to see how being an atheist is 'logically unsustainable'... It's perfectly logical to me! No disrespect meant but, what is logically unsustainable to me is believing in talking snakes, wooden boats that carried 2 of every creature, people walking on water, a man parting the ocean, virgin births, and stuff like that.

Welcome to eternityimpact

This blog is a place for encouragement, ideas & stories about fulfilling the Great Commission through intentional evangelism (including apologetics), committed discipleship & leadership development. Enjoy!